amazing miracle device
 

So the makers claim!, seems to decode wav and FLAC files to better than
CD
quality;!....


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5212396.stm
--
Tony Sayer

amazing miracle device
 

In my view, anything that attempts to kill off that pervasive disease that
is .mp3 must be good.

"The $1,999 (£1,079) player is aimed at people who encode music using
so-called lossless formats, such as Flac or Wav."

I have no idea what Flac is but .wav is not encoded (it is a bit for bit
digital copy) and therefore lossless. It is raw data (isn't it?).

"Audiophiles are investing a lot of money to rip their files at more than
simple 128kbps MP3."

Are they? I wouldn't have thought so. Surely an audiophile would want to
remain in the digital domain as far as possible.
If .mp3 is required 'for the gym', an encoder hardly requires 'investing a
lot of money'.

"Flac and Wav are the favoured formats of many digital audiophiles because
they retain all the information on a CD when converted or transferred into
digital or non-physical form."

The article corrects itself. Now .wav does 'retain all the information'
rather than being 'so-called lossless'. What is meant by 'converted or
transferred into digital'? There is no conversion - it remains digital.

At £1,079, it seems rather expensive for a DAC - that's all it is. Am I
missing something?

Ummm, I wonder how they can extract more information than there is present
on the CD. Ah, I am missing something!

Paul



"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

So the makers claim!, seems to decode wav and FLAC files to better than
CD
quality;!....


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5212396.stm
--
Tony Sayer

amazing miracle device
 

"Paul" wrote in message
...
In my view, anything that attempts to kill off that pervasive disease that
is .mp3 must be good.

"The $1,999 (£1,079) player is aimed at people who encode music using
so-called lossless formats, such as Flac or Wav."

I have no idea what Flac is but .wav is not encoded (it is a bit for bit
digital copy) and therefore lossless. It is raw data (isn't it?).

"Audiophiles are investing a lot of money to rip their files at more than
simple 128kbps MP3."

Are they? I wouldn't have thought so. Surely an audiophile would want to
remain in the digital domain as far as possible.



They would??

Ask all the 'I hate vinyl, but I prefer FM' audiophiles here! :-)

Anyway, WTF is MP3 if not in the 'digital domain'.....???

amazing miracle device
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Paul" wrote in message
...
In my view, anything that attempts to kill off that pervasive disease
that is .mp3 must be good.

"The $1,999 (£1,079) player is aimed at people who encode music using
so-called lossless formats, such as Flac or Wav."

I have no idea what Flac is but .wav is not encoded (it is a bit for bit
digital copy) and therefore lossless. It is raw data (isn't it?).

"Audiophiles are investing a lot of money to rip their files at more than
simple 128kbps MP3."

Are they? I wouldn't have thought so. Surely an audiophile would want to
remain in the digital domain as far as possible.



They would??

Yes they would, but I suspect your definition of 'audiophile' differs from
mine :)
Now, without having any desire to be argumentative, I see little evidence of
'audiophile' activity in this ng.
I closely link 'audiophile' with 'Hi-Fidelity'. While I am not having a go
(and will not be drawn into a senseless slanging match so much favoured
here), there is no evidence of any interest in Hi-FI.
It appears to me that this ng is for those with an interest in audio
hardware as a hobby. Absolutely nothing wrong with that but, as far as I am
concerned, this is not the pursuit of an audiophile. An audiophile is only
interested in Hi-Fi. End of story. He/she has not the least interest in how
it is achieved (while wearing their audiophile hat).

Ask all the 'I hate vinyl, but I prefer FM' audiophiles here! :-)
Sorry, I had a late night! I have no idea what you are getting at! However,
when I come across a sentence (in an audio context) containing the word
'vinyl' I know I need read no further.

Anyway, WTF is MP3 if not in the 'digital domain'.....???
Sorry again. That's my fault. Yes it is digital. However, my reference to
'digital domain' refers to pure audio data.
As I'm sure you will know, MP3 is about as removed from pure audio data as
you can get and still have (some) data. Microsoft Word is in the digital
domain but you wouldn't sit and listen to it (would you?) so why assault
your ears with MP3 crap?

Paul

amazing miracle device
 

In article ,
Paul wrote:
Yes they would, but I suspect your definition of 'audiophile' differs
from mine :) Now, without having any desire to be argumentative, I see
little evidence of 'audiophile' activity in this ng. I closely link
'audiophile' with 'Hi-Fidelity'. While I am not having a go (and will
not be drawn into a senseless slanging match so much favoured here),
there is no evidence of any interest in Hi-FI. It appears to me that
this ng is for those with an interest in audio hardware as a hobby.
Absolutely nothing wrong with that but, as far as I am concerned, this
is not the pursuit of an audiophile. An audiophile is only interested
in Hi-Fi. End of story. He/she has not the least interest in how it is
achieved (while wearing their audiophile hat).

For many on here it seems to be a life's work to try and convert true
audio enthusiasts back to vinyl, poorly designed valve amps and crappy
horn loaded single driver speakers. Can't think why, but there we are.
Probably stems from severe hearing impairment.

--
*Why is it that doctors call what they do "practice"?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

amazing miracle device
 

"Paul" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Paul" wrote in message
...
In my view, anything that attempts to kill off that pervasive disease
that is .mp3 must be good.

"The $1,999 (£1,079) player is aimed at people who encode music using
so-called lossless formats, such as Flac or Wav."

I have no idea what Flac is but .wav is not encoded (it is a bit for
bit digital copy) and therefore lossless. It is raw data (isn't it?).

"Audiophiles are investing a lot of money to rip their files at more
than simple 128kbps MP3."

Are they? I wouldn't have thought so. Surely an audiophile would want to
remain in the digital domain as far as possible.



They would??

Yes they would, but I suspect your definition of 'audiophile' differs from
mine :)


Probably....


Now, without having any desire to be argumentative, I see little evidence
of 'audiophile' activity in this ng.


OK, so it's not looking *all* bad then...?? :-)


I closely link 'audiophile' with 'Hi-Fidelity'.


I've no idea, but I suspect there's a few here who would take issue with
that....


While I am not having a go
(and will not be drawn into a senseless slanging match so much favoured
here),


Why not? You might enjoy it! ;-)


there is no evidence of any interest in Hi-FI.
It appears to me that this ng is for those with an interest in audio
hardware as a hobby. Absolutely nothing wrong with that but, as far as I
am concerned, this is not the pursuit of an audiophile. An audiophile is
only interested in Hi-Fi. End of story. He/she has not the least interest
in how it is achieved (while wearing their audiophile hat).


No, you lost me there....



Ask all the 'I hate vinyl, but I prefer FM' audiophiles here! :-)
Sorry, I had a late night! I have no idea what you are getting at!
However, when I come across a sentence (in an audio context) containing
the word 'vinyl' I know I need read no further.


And yet you did....??

;-)

See:



Anyway, WTF is MP3 if not in the 'digital domain'.....???
Sorry again. That's my fault. Yes it is digital. However, my reference to
'digital domain' refers to pure audio data.


????


As I'm sure you will know, MP3 is about as removed from pure audio data as
you can get


????


and still have (some) data.


????


Microsoft Word is in the digital
domain but you wouldn't sit and listen to it (would you?) so why assault
your ears with MP3 crap?


Er, because you're sitting on a bus and the turntable keeps sliding off your
lap....???

OK. Lemme relieve you of some of your burden....

There are some people in this world who like to eat caterpillars - great big
4 and 5 inch buggers! (They whirl them round smartly to flick the poo out of
'em first, I gather!) Anyway, I hafta say I'm not tempted myself, but they
say they love 'em and some say they prefer them to Macdonalds, they think
they are *better*!

I say *fine* - chow down and enjoy!!

:-)

It takes all sorts and the world would be a poorer place without them -
likewise, take the vinylphiles (me) out of this group and it'll be nobbut
DBTs, 'DAB stinks' and Cable Wars all the way....

Is that what you would like?

amazing miracle device
 

"Keith G" wrote


OK, make that:

It takes all sorts and the world would be a poorer place without them -
likewise, take the *MP3ers* and vinylphiles (me) out of this group and
it'll be nobbut DBTs, 'DAB stinks' and Cable Wars all the way....

Is that what you would like?


IOW this an audio group, not a *some audio only* group, IMO.....

amazing miracle device
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Paul" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Paul" wrote in message
...
In my view, anything that attempts to kill off that pervasive disease
that is .mp3 must be good.

"The $1,999 (£1,079) player is aimed at people who encode music using
so-called lossless formats, such as Flac or Wav."

I have no idea what Flac is but .wav is not encoded (it is a bit for
bit digital copy) and therefore lossless. It is raw data (isn't it?).

"Audiophiles are investing a lot of money to rip their files at more
than simple 128kbps MP3."

Are they? I wouldn't have thought so. Surely an audiophile would want
to remain in the digital domain as far as possible.



They would??

Yes they would, but I suspect your definition of 'audiophile' differs
from mine :)


Probably....


Now, without having any desire to be argumentative, I see little evidence
of 'audiophile' activity in this ng.


OK, so it's not looking *all* bad then...?? :-)


I closely link 'audiophile' with 'Hi-Fidelity'.


I've no idea, but I suspect there's a few here who would take issue with
that....
QED!!!!!!


While I am not having a go
(and will not be drawn into a senseless slanging match so much favoured
here),


Why not? You might enjoy it! ;-)
I'd rather spend the time listening to music :) However, I can perhaps see
that good healthy sparring could be enjoyable up to a point but, looking
back through the posts here, I have no wish to be a party to a 'discussion'
that degenerates (very quickly) into a foul mouthed tirade. Maybe I'm over
reacting. I'm no prude and I too have a very comprehensive arsenal of words
that I would not use in polite company at my disposal but honestly, what is
the point? Does it help anyone? When you see a post from somebody who
clearly is looking for advice/help/guidance have his or her post hijacked
and turned into one of those 'events' I have to wonder what the hell is
going on.


there is no evidence of any interest in Hi-FI.
It appears to me that this ng is for those with an interest in audio
hardware as a hobby. Absolutely nothing wrong with that but, as far as I
am concerned, this is not the pursuit of an audiophile. An audiophile is
only interested in Hi-Fi. End of story. He/she has not the least interest
in how it is achieved (while wearing their audiophile hat).


No, you lost me there....
? I think that is crystal!



Ask all the 'I hate vinyl, but I prefer FM' audiophiles here! :-)
Sorry, I had a late night! I have no idea what you are getting at!
However, when I come across a sentence (in an audio context) containing
the word 'vinyl' I know I need read no further.


And yet you did....??

;-)

I did??? I've read the op and my reply and cannot find 'vinyl' anywhere.
Perhaps my night was later than I thought!
I don't hate that word (I have some) but it is simply not Hi-Fi. I know it
and I believe you know it too.

See:



Anyway, WTF is MP3 if not in the 'digital domain'.....???
Sorry again. That's my fault. Yes it is digital. However, my reference to
'digital domain' refers to pure audio data.


????


As I'm sure you will know, MP3 is about as removed from pure audio data
as you can get


????


and still have (some) data.


????


Microsoft Word is in the digital
domain but you wouldn't sit and listen to it (would you?) so why assault
your ears with MP3 crap?


Er, because you're sitting on a bus and the turntable keeps sliding off
your lap....???
Ah, so you're the one that incessantly bombards my ears with bloody cymbals
:)
I was right then. This ng has nothing to do with Hi-Fi. I'll look for
another ng.


OK. Lemme relieve you of some of your burden....

There are some people in this world who like to eat caterpillars - great
big 4 and 5 inch buggers! (They whirl them round smartly to flick the poo
out of 'em first, I gather!) Anyway, I hafta say I'm not tempted myself,
but they say they love 'em and some say they prefer them to Macdonalds,
they think they are *better*!

I say *fine* - chow down and enjoy!!

:-)
Absolutely fine by me but would they try and tell me that that's what I
should eat because it's the only gourmet food? If they said that to you,
wouldn't you take issue with them? I think you have drawn a rather nice
parallel with this ng!!!!!


It takes all sorts and the world would be a poorer place without them -
likewise, take the vinylphiles (me) out of this group and it'll be nobbut
DBTs, 'DAB stinks' and Cable Wars all the way....

Keith, the group is as much yours as anybody's. I hope you continue to
express your views and opinions as long as you have a desire to do so. As
for those who wish to spoon feed me with tripe, well, I can do without that!

Is that what you would like?
I thought I was clear on what I like - High Fidelity!!!!

Ok. Have I been drawn enough :)
It is clear that we differ in many areas of sound reproduction (I can't say
Hi-Fi here can I) and I could go on as I'm sure could you but I would never
convince you any more than you would convince me. We simply know what we
like and that's how it should be. For my part I guess I am a little obsessed
with wringing the last drop of signal, at the highest quality from my
system. Yep, High Fidelity - it sure does it for me. It's just wonderful!!!

PS. I have to admit that you are right - it's good to talk (as long as it's
civil) :)

Finally, Nothing I have written is in anyway intended to cause offence.

Paul

amazing miracle device
 

In article ,
Paul wrote:
I did??? I've read the op and my reply and cannot find 'vinyl' anywhere.
Perhaps my night was later than I thought! I don't hate that word (I
have some) but it is simply not Hi-Fi. I know it and I believe you know
it too.

There is a dedicated vinyl group uk.rec.audio.vinyl set up by some of
those here. But it's virtually moribund apart from a few spams and ads.
There's no point in trying to take the Gospel to the converted. And it
seems the converted don't want to talk about it.

--
*Time is what keeps everything from happening at once.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

amazing miracle device
 

Ok. Then I guess I will have to talk about it. :)
To me, the 'vinyl' issue is simple.
We could perform a little experiment.
Here we go...
Take a sound source that can be replicated. Let's use a digital synth
together with a sequencer.
The use of a digital synth rather than an analogue one is simply because an
analogue synth may well not sound the same twice due to temperature and
other variations.
Hopefully, while off topic, most will understand what a sequencer does.
Now play some chords or what ever and record the performance (not the audio)
in the sequencer.
Plug the synth directly into the best cutter available and produce a master.
Use the best virgin vinyl and create a disc.
Now plug the synth directly into a PC or whatever and blah blah create an
audio CD.
Pick a turntable/arm/cart combination of your choice and compare the result
with the synth sequence.
Do the same with the CD and synth sequence.
Game over, job done, end of story.
Elementary(?) physics will enlighten as to why this should be.
When the master was cut, information was lost due to the fact that it is
impossible to move mass (however small) from rest instantly. Inertia - bang
goes transient response. Try and get moving mass to change direction
instantly - bugger, more information lost.
It gets worse (well you knew that). Now we will try and get another body to
'read' the information from the groove. Buzzzzz, repartition! I'm not even
considering the 'damage' caused to the signal by the unstable, pliable disc.
Need I say more? Yes, even more data lost. Mind you, you do get some
addition data - hiss, clicks and pops!
Do the same test with the CD.
Yes, I am well aware that light has mass but please.... Just don't go there!
Which, in all honesty, will sound closest to the original?
I rest my case.

Paul.

PS. I've just realised that I am guilty of hijacking the op - face goes red.




"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Paul wrote:
I did??? I've read the op and my reply and cannot find 'vinyl' anywhere.
Perhaps my night was later than I thought! I don't hate that word (I
have some) but it is simply not Hi-Fi. I know it and I believe you know
it too.

There is a dedicated vinyl group uk.rec.audio.vinyl set up by some of
those here. But it's virtually moribund apart from a few spams and ads.
There's no point in trying to take the Gospel to the converted. And it
seems the converted don't want to talk about it.

--
*Time is what keeps everything from happening at once.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

amazing miracle device
 

In article ,
Paul wrote:
Ok. Then I guess I will have to talk about it. :)
To me, the 'vinyl' issue is simple.
We could perform a little experiment.
Here we go...
Take a sound source that can be replicated. Let's use a digital synth
together with a sequencer.

[snip]

There's an easier way.

Take your 'favourite' CD. Copy it to CD. If you do this properly there
will be no difference.
Now copy it to LP. Expensive yes, but I've done it. *Anyone* will hear the
difference between the original CD and LP copy.

This proves that LP isn't a clone of any master - and that's before the
mastering boys have got at it. And can't possibly enhance the original -
regardless of what the disciples say. It is adding distortion - in the
main.

--
*I wonder how much deeper the ocean would be without sponges*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

amazing miracle device
 

"Paul" wrote in message
...
Ok. Then I guess I will have to talk about it. :)


Well, there's a surprise...!! ;-)


To me, the 'vinyl' issue is simple.


Oh Gawd....


We could perform a little experiment.
Here we go...
Take a sound source that can be replicated. Let's use a digital synth
together with a sequencer.
The use of a digital synth rather than an analogue one is simply because
an analogue synth may well not sound the same twice due to temperature and
other variations.
Hopefully, while off topic, most will understand what a sequencer does.
Now play some chords or what ever and record the performance (not the
audio) in the sequencer.
Plug the synth directly into the best cutter available and produce a
master.
Use the best virgin vinyl and create a disc.
Now plug the synth directly into a PC or whatever and blah blah create an
audio CD.
Pick a turntable/arm/cart combination of your choice and compare the
result with the synth sequence.
Do the same with the CD and synth sequence.
Game over, job done, end of story.
Elementary(?) physics will enlighten as to why this should be.
When the master was cut, information was lost due to the fact that it is
impossible to move mass (however small) from rest instantly. Inertia -
bang goes transient response. Try and get moving mass to change direction
instantly - bugger, more information lost.
It gets worse (well you knew that). Now we will try and get another body
to 'read' the information from the groove. Buzzzzz, repartition! I'm not
even considering the 'damage' caused to the signal by the unstable,
pliable disc. Need I say more? Yes, even more data lost. Mind you, you do
get some addition data - hiss, clicks and pops!
Do the same test with the CD.
Yes, I am well aware that light has mass but please.... Just don't go
there!
Which, in all honesty, will sound closest to the original?
I rest my case.



Streuth.....

(??!!??)



Paul.

PS. I've just realised that I am guilty of hijacking the op - face goes
red.



Don't worry about it - it was only Tony and he only really lights up for
radio broadcast stuff.....

Anyway, welcome to UKRA - you're posting ******** and bashing vinyl, you'll
fit in nicely!!

(And I see you've picked up a little friend already..... :-)

amazing miracle device
 

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 00:49:58 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


In article ,
Paul wrote:
Ok. Then I guess I will have to talk about it. :)
To me, the 'vinyl' issue is simple.
We could perform a little experiment.
Here we go...
Take a sound source that can be replicated. Let's use a digital synth
together with a sequencer.

[snip]

There's an easier way.

Take your 'favourite' CD. Copy it to CD. If you do this properly there
will be no difference.
Now copy it to LP. Expensive yes, but I've done it. *Anyone* will hear the
difference between the original CD and LP copy.

This proves that LP isn't a clone of any master - and that's before the
mastering boys have got at it. And can't possibly enhance the original -
regardless of what the disciples say. It is adding distortion - in the
main.

A better test would be to use a higher quality recording and master it
to both LP and CD and compare.

amazing miracle device
 

In article , Paul
wrote:

[snip]

Elementary(?) physics will enlighten as to why this should be. When the
master was cut, information was lost due to the fact that it is
impossible to move mass (however small) from rest instantly. Inertia -
bang goes transient response. Try and get moving mass to change
direction instantly - bugger, more information lost. It gets worse (well
you knew that). Now we will try and get another body to 'read' the
information from the groove. Buzzzzz, repartition! I'm not even
considering the 'damage' caused to the signal by the unstable, pliable
disc. Need I say more?

FWIW The record companies (and cartridge replay companines) themselves did
a series of experiments, measurements, etc, on these things many years ago.
I used them as sources for an article on the topic. If you visit my 'Audio
Misc' site and look at the pages called "Good Resolutions" the second page
gives the references and explains the consequences.

The record companies were in an excellent position to do this as they could
compare the various stages though the process, so could establish how much
deterioration occured when a stamper was made, etc.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

amazing miracle device
 

In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote:
Take your 'favourite' CD. Copy it to CD. If you do this properly there
will be no difference. Now copy it to LP. Expensive yes, but I've done
it. *Anyone* will hear the difference between the original CD and LP
copy.

This proves that LP isn't a clone of any master - and that's before the
mastering boys have got at it. And can't possibly enhance the original -
regardless of what the disciples say. It is adding distortion - in the
main.

A better test would be to use a higher quality recording and master it
to both LP and CD and compare.

Absolutely not. *Mastering* to both CD and LP invariably involves changing
the master. Copy would be ok, but then a straight copy to CD will to all
intents and purposes sound the same as the master.

Of course for my test you'd need to choose the material carefully, as not
everything can be directly copied to LP. Another of its disadvantages. ;-)

--
*The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

amazing miracle device
 

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...

snip (am I getting the hang of this :) )


A better test would be to use a higher quality recording and master it
to both LP and CD and compare.


I believe my little experiment describes the ultimate test!! There is no
higher quality source than that which I have described.
What I have is effectively a live performance that can be replicated time
and time again. Your suggestion will certainly highlight the inadequacies of
vinyl but it cannot test for High Fidelity.

Perhaps I should not have brought vinyl into the test in the first place. My
quest is the pursuit of High Fidelity.
I have clearly inadvertently fuelled the vinyl bashers/CD lovers pointless
debate. Vinyl is more than capable of clubbing itself to death and has been
doing so since its creation.

If people enjoy what they listen to then they've cracked it! That's
marvellous. No really, I'm not taking the mick. Perhaps, if I had part of my
brain removed I could join the club and be content. However, while I get
immense pleasure from listening to music (as opposed to my system), I know
that the job can be done better.

Those who's enjoyment is derived from listening to their systems are on a
different quest. Good luck to them. We simply have different agendas. My
goal is not for those who revel in sound which is 'smooth', 'warm', 'laid
back', 'up front' or 'beguiling etc. To me, they are simply describing a
coloured, inaccurate sound which has no place in my living room. What they
are not doing is describing High Fidelity. They have no interest in High
Fidelity and I have no problem with that.

Paul

amazing miracle device
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Paul wrote:
Ok. Then I guess I will have to talk about it. :)
To me, the 'vinyl' issue is simple.
We could perform a little experiment.
Here we go...
Take a sound source that can be replicated. Let's use a digital synth
together with a sequencer.

[snip]

There's an easier way.

Take your 'favourite' CD. Copy it to CD. If you do this properly there
will be no difference.

Well, not strictly true. As there is no Cyclic Redundancy Check incorporated
in audio CDs, there is always the possibility of rare, infrequent errors.
Another experiment to prove the point - take a CD (preferably not your
favourite) and drill a *small* hole in it. Now play it. It should work just
fine, you would not hear any problem despite obvious errors. I suspect the
designers reasoning behind this is that, if CRC was employed, a great many
CDs would be unusable with the slightest scratch. CDs need to be treated
with a great deal of respect. Keep them clean and scratch/mark free and you
will have very few, if any, errors.

Now copy it to LP. Expensive yes, but I've done it. *Anyone* will hear the
difference between the original CD and LP copy.

This proves that LP isn't a clone of any master - and that's before the
mastering boys have got at it. And can't possibly enhance the original -
regardless of what the disciples say. It is adding distortion - in the
main.


No need to do this. We know it is not a clone or anywhere close. It has been
butchered by the RIAA filter in an attempt to make up for the inability of a
mechanical system.

Paul

amazing miracle device
 

Paul wrote:

Well, not strictly true. As there is no Cyclic Redundancy Check incorporated
in audio CDs, there is always the possibility of rare, infrequent errors.
Another experiment to prove the point - take a CD (preferably not your
favourite) and drill a *small* hole in it. Now play it. It should work just
fine, you would not hear any problem despite obvious errors. I suspect the
designers reasoning behind this is that, if CRC was employed, a great many
CDs would be unusable with the slightest scratch. CDs need to be treated
with a great deal of respect. Keep them clean and scratch/mark free and you
will have very few, if any, errors.

So you don't understand CIRC.

No need to do this. We know it is not a clone or anywhere close. It has been
butchered by the RIAA filter in an attempt to make up for the inability of a
mechanical system.

The RIAA filter is reversible, as is done in any phono preamp,
and is therefore not butchery. What is your point?

--
Eiron

No good deed ever goes unpunished.

amazing miracle device
 

"Eiron" wrote in message
...
Paul wrote:

Well, not strictly true. As there is no Cyclic Redundancy Check
incorporated in audio CDs, there is always the possibility of rare,
infrequent errors. Another experiment to prove the point - take a CD
(preferably not your favourite) and drill a *small* hole in it. Now play
it. It should work just fine, you would not hear any problem despite
obvious errors. I suspect the designers reasoning behind this is that, if
CRC was employed, a great many CDs would be unusable with the slightest
scratch. CDs need to be treated with a great deal of respect. Keep them
clean and scratch/mark free and you will have very few, if any, errors.

So you don't understand CIRC.

Correct. That may be why I have not mentioned it!!!
I am talking about CRC - Cyclic Redundancy Check.
CRC is employed on data files. It is a check sum if you like. It ensures
that data retrieved from CDs or harddisks is 100% accurate. If a sector read
produces an incorrect CRC then it is read again. Multiple attempts will be
made before the source is considered unreadable. This is *not* employed on
audio CDs - the data is simply streamed - good or bad.
Try the 'hole' experiment and it should become clear to you. You may also
like to try it on a data CD to illustrate the point - ruined disc.


No need to do this. We know it is not a clone or anywhere close. It has
been butchered by the RIAA filter in an attempt to make up for the
inability of a mechanical system.

The RIAA filter is reversible, as is done in any phono preamp,
and is therefore not butchery. What is your point?

If it isn't broken, why fix it? My point, hopefully, is crystal.

Look, if you enjoy the product that vinyl delivers then fine. How many times
do I have to say it? My 'problem' is that I will only be satisfied when I
get the highest fidelity that technology will allow. It would be great and I
would be 100% in your camp if vinyl and a mechanical retrieval system
achieved that. It doesn't, it can't and it never could. That should be
obvious to all. However, if vinyl gives you what you are looking for then
brilliant. Honestly, fill your boots! I would not try and turn you from it.
However, please don't tell me that it will give me what I am looking for. I
want High Fidelity which cannot be attained through mechanical means.

Paul

amazing miracle device
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Paul
wrote:

[snip]

Elementary(?) physics will enlighten as to why this should be. When the
master was cut, information was lost due to the fact that it is
impossible to move mass (however small) from rest instantly. Inertia -
bang goes transient response. Try and get moving mass to change
direction instantly - bugger, more information lost. It gets worse (well
you knew that). Now we will try and get another body to 'read' the
information from the groove. Buzzzzz, repartition! I'm not even
considering the 'damage' caused to the signal by the unstable, pliable
disc. Need I say more?

FWIW The record companies (and cartridge replay companines) themselves did
a series of experiments, measurements, etc, on these things many years
ago.
I used them as sources for an article on the topic. If you visit my 'Audio
Misc' site and look at the pages called "Good Resolutions" the second page
gives the references and explains the consequences.

I haven't read your article but, if I read your post correctly, there are
consequences.


The record companies were in an excellent position to do this as they
could
compare the various stages though the process, so could establish how much
deterioration occured when a stamper was made, etc.

Exactly - 'how much deterioration', not whether there is *any*
deterioration.
The process is flawed. Why is it that it appears to 'hurt' people to admit
it?
Why is there a problem accepting a less flawed alternative to vynil?
I must conclude that High Fidelity is not the goal of many.
If people said 'I know vinyl is not High Fidelity but I prefer it' then I
could understand.

Paul


Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics
http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

amazing miracle device
 

"Paul" wrote in message
...

Exactly - 'how much deterioration', not whether there is *any*
deterioration.
The process is flawed. Why is it that it appears to 'hurt' people to admit
it?
Why is there a problem accepting a less flawed alternative to vynil?
I must conclude that High Fidelity is not the goal of many.
If people said 'I know vinyl is not High Fidelity but I prefer it' then I
could understand.

Paul

Please enlighten all by detailing what the technical specifications of a
reproduction medium must be for it to be categorised "High Fidelity", and
therefore where you draw the line.

amazing miracle device
 

In article ,
Paul wrote:
This proves that LP isn't a clone of any master - and that's before the
mastering boys have got at it. And can't possibly enhance the original -
regardless of what the disciples say. It is adding distortion - in the
main.


No need to do this. We know it is not a clone or anywhere close. It has
been butchered by the RIAA filter in an attempt to make up for the
inability of a mechanical system.

Pre-emphasis and subsequent de-emphasis is also used on analogue tape
recording systems, FM radio, etc etc. Nothing wrong with it if correctly
implemented.

--
*Why don't sheep shrink when it rains?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

amazing miracle device
 

In article ,
Paul wrote:
The record companies were in an excellent position to do this as they
could compare the various stages though the process, so could
establish how much deterioration occured when a stamper was made, etc.

Exactly - 'how much deterioration', not whether there is *any*
deterioration. The process is flawed. Why is it that it appears to
'hurt' people to admit it? Why is there a problem accepting a less
flawed alternative to vynil? I must conclude that High Fidelity is not
the goal of many. If people said 'I know vinyl is not High Fidelity but
I prefer it' then I could understand.

It still makes for an interesting discussion, however, as many appeared to
have forgotten just how 'vinyl' actually works.

--
*If a parsley farmer is sued, can they garnish his wages?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

amazing miracle device
 

snip

No need to do this. We know it is not a clone or anywhere close. It has
been butchered by the RIAA filter in an attempt to make up for the
inability of a mechanical system.

Pre-emphasis and subsequent de-emphasis is also used on analogue tape
recording systems, FM radio, etc etc. Nothing wrong with it if correctly
implemented.

Ok. I'm willing to strike that from my list if for no other reason than not
wishing to get bogged down :)
However, well done or not, to me it's a bodge, a fudge, a fix for an
inadequate method. If it wasn't needed it would not have been employed. The
fact the it is required tells me all I need to know.
Incidentally, in my view, both tape and FM are awful and could never be
labelled Hi-Fi either!

Paul

amazing miracle device
 

Please enlighten all by detailing what the technical specifications of a
reproduction medium must be for it to be categorised "High Fidelity", and
therefore where you draw the line.

I am not trying to enlighten - I have no interest in that area. (Do *all*
need enlightenment?)

What I find interesting is the stubborn unwillingness of many to acknowledge
widely held and believed scientific principles.
Do you, or others, consider that physics does not apply to the vinyl issue?
If so, and you can provide reliable, repeatable evidence, you are in a
position to turn science on its head. I envy you - you will become a
household name over night. So, can we please put that one to bed?

Ok, lets forget technical specs for a moment. The *highest* fidelity will be
attained when the reproduced sound is identical to the source.
This would be verified, or not, by comparison using calibrated instruments.
Simple isn't it? Obviously I am not referring to comparison by ear which is
not calibrated and, in many cases, is faulty. Sure, that will tell you which
system is preferable to you and your ears but is meaningless in terms of
Hi-Fi. This should be obvious due to the fact that we don't find 100% of the
listeners choosing the same system. So who is picking the best system? With
this method of selection I would suggest they all are!

Current technology may or may not yet allow the *highest* fidelity - I don't
know. However, by comparison with a replicable sound source, it will let us
identify the which comes closest. High Fidelity sits at the top of the
(current) tree.
It should be clear that you can only draw a line when there is something
both above and below it. Therefore there is no line to be drawn.
If you are one of the many who have a need to be able to proclaim 'my system
is above the line' then fine. I have absolutely no problem with that and why
should I?

Paul

PS Is that you Keith? :)

amazing miracle device
 

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 16:32:38 +0100, "Paul" wrote:

snip

No need to do this. We know it is not a clone or anywhere close. It has
been butchered by the RIAA filter in an attempt to make up for the
inability of a mechanical system.

Pre-emphasis and subsequent de-emphasis is also used on analogue tape
recording systems, FM radio, etc etc. Nothing wrong with it if correctly
implemented.

Ok. I'm willing to strike that from my list if for no other reason than not
wishing to get bogged down :)
However, well done or not, to me it's a bodge, a fudge, a fix for an
inadequate method. If it wasn't needed it would not have been employed. The
fact the it is required tells me all I need to know.
Incidentally, in my view, both tape and FM are awful and could never be
labelled Hi-Fi either!

Paul


It is neither a bodge nor a fix. It is a way of using a resource that
would otherwise be wasted - high frequency headroom. An exactly
matched amplitude/phase curve is exactly equivalent to flat frequency
and phase, and there is no problem whatever in making that match.

And do remember that the CD specification includes the option to use
pre-emphasis.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

amazing miracle device
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 16:32:38 +0100, "Paul" wrote:

snip

It is neither a bodge nor a fix. It is a way of using a resource that
would otherwise be wasted - high frequency headroom. An exactly
matched amplitude/phase curve is exactly equivalent to flat frequency
and phase, and there is no problem whatever in making that match.

Are you telling me that an RIAA filter is optional for vinyl?
My understanding is that it is a prerequisite and that it has to be employed
because it is impossible to cut a groove at high frequencies (perhaps even
low frequencies). The same being true for retrieval - a stylus simply could
not track it accurately even if it could be cut. Without it's use, the vinyl
experience would be appalling.
I believe that, because of the limitations, information is
compressed/omitted/converted or whatever and reconstituted in the amp. Am I
wrong here? I am more than happy to be told when I am wrong. If I am
correct, it is a bodge etc put in place to overcome limitations.


And do remember that the CD specification includes the option to use
pre-emphasis.

But is it used? More to the point, as it is optional, it is clear that it
isn't necessary.

Paul

amazing miracle device
 

In article ,
Paul wrote:
Incidentally, in my view, both tape and FM are awful and could never be
labelled Hi-Fi either!

I do wonder if you've heard either at its best. I have a Revox reel to
reel with a Dolby SR unit around it which gives results as near as dammit
to 16 bit PCM. FM radio can also be pretty good - although these days the
dreaded optimod type devices often ruin it.

--
*I finally got my head together, now my body is falling apart.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

amazing miracle device
 

snip

It is neither a bodge nor a fix. It is a way of using a resource that
would otherwise be wasted - high frequency headroom. An exactly
matched amplitude/phase curve is exactly equivalent to flat frequency
and phase, and there is no problem whatever in making that match.

Oops, missed a bit!
Why would you wish to perform two unnecessary conversions?
How can you be sure of an *exact* match?
Surely it is unwise to add any unnecessary circuitry.

Paul

amazing miracle device
 

Paul wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 16:32:38 +0100, "Paul" wrote:


snip

It is neither a bodge nor a fix. It is a way of using a resource that
would otherwise be wasted - high frequency headroom. An exactly
matched amplitude/phase curve is exactly equivalent to flat frequency
and phase, and there is no problem whatever in making that match.


Are you telling me that an RIAA filter is optional for vinyl?
My understanding is that it is a prerequisite and that it has to be employed
because it is impossible to cut a groove at high frequencies (perhaps even
low frequencies). The same being true for retrieval - a stylus simply could
not track it accurately even if it could be cut. Without it's use, the vinyl
experience would be appalling.
I believe that, because of the limitations, information is
compressed/omitted/converted or whatever and reconstituted in the amp. Am I
wrong here? I am more than happy to be told when I am wrong. If I am
correct, it is a bodge etc put in place to overcome limitations.



I can't see how its a bodge, its a filter, that is designed to be
matched with a inverse on replay. Remember there is a similar (though
for different reasons) filter employed in the recording and replay of
CD's, again, without that filter the CD experence would be equally
appalling (maybe worst without the initial filter before the AD, and
even with a DDD disk, somewhere there will be a AD step unless you are
listening to just a digital synth).

If it gets you less upset don't think of it as a filter, think of it as
a converter from a position detection to a velocity detection system and
the reverse at playback.

--
Nick

amazing miracle device
 

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 17:43:47 +0100, "Paul" wrote:


snip

It is neither a bodge nor a fix. It is a way of using a resource that
would otherwise be wasted - high frequency headroom. An exactly
matched amplitude/phase curve is exactly equivalent to flat frequency
and phase, and there is no problem whatever in making that match.

Oops, missed a bit!
Why would you wish to perform two unnecessary conversions?
How can you be sure of an *exact* match?
Surely it is unwise to add any unnecessary circuitry.

Paul


Please, just go find a book on the subject and find out why you can do
it, and how it all works. There is too much to explain right here.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

amazing miracle device
 

"Paul" wrote in message
...


Please enlighten all by detailing what the technical specifications of a
reproduction medium must be for it to be categorised "High Fidelity", and
therefore where you draw the line.

I am not trying to enlighten - I have no interest in that area. (Do *all*
need enlightenment?)

What I find interesting is the stubborn unwillingness of many to
acknowledge
widely held and believed scientific principles.
Do you, or others, consider that physics does not apply to the vinyl
issue?
If so, and you can provide reliable, repeatable evidence, you are in a
position to turn science on its head. I envy you - you will become a
household name over night. So, can we please put that one to bed?

Ok, lets forget technical specs for a moment. The *highest* fidelity will
be
attained when the reproduced sound is identical to the source.
This would be verified, or not, by comparison using calibrated
instruments.
Simple isn't it? Obviously I am not referring to comparison by ear which
is
not calibrated and, in many cases, is faulty. Sure, that will tell you
which
system is preferable to you and your ears but is meaningless in terms of
Hi-Fi. This should be obvious due to the fact that we don't find 100% of
the
listeners choosing the same system. So who is picking the best system?
With
this method of selection I would suggest they all are!

Current technology may or may not yet allow the *highest* fidelity - I
don't
know. However, by comparison with a replicable sound source, it will let
us
identify the which comes closest. High Fidelity sits at the top of the
(current) tree.
It should be clear that you can only draw a line when there is something
both above and below it. Therefore there is no line to be drawn.
If you are one of the many who have a need to be able to proclaim 'my
system
is above the line' then fine. I have absolutely no problem with that and
why
should I?

Paul

PS Is that you Keith? :)



Is *what* me?

Are you making the mistake of thinking I *don't* have about 500 CDs, 15,000
MP3s and 500 DVD-Videos here?

(Not to mention DAB and FV radio, two 'media computers' with DL DVDRW
drives, a selection of digital PVRs, STBs, CDPs, DVDPs and a couple of
Digital Projectors....???)

You'll be joining the ranks of those here (OK, one clown actually....)
calling me a 'Flat Earther' next.....!!

amazing miracle device
 

I can't see how its a bodge, its a filter, that is designed to be
matched with a inverse on replay. Remember there is a similar (though for
different reasons) filter employed in the recording and replay of CD's,
again, without that filter the CD experence would be equally appalling
(maybe worst without the initial filter before the AD, and even with a DDD
disk, somewhere there will be a AD step unless you are listening to just a
digital synth).

If it gets you less upset don't think of it as a filter, think of it as a
converter from a position detection to a velocity detection system and the
reverse at playback.

--
Nick

Hold on a mo. We are drifting aware from my original purpose.
My interest is with High Fidelity and how best it can be achieved with
available technology.
It is probably clear that my preference of those available is CD. However, I
am not saying CDs don't have issues. I have no desire to tread this well
worn path.
It is also clear to me that CD is today's more capable medium. It can be
proven to be the better of the bunch! Consequently, it demonstrates that the
others aren't.
High Fidelity is my holy grail. I don't care what is inside any little black
box as long as it produces a sound output closest to the original sound
producing source. That's the one I would go for until something better (or
indeed the grail) comes alone. If it can be demonstrated to me that a wax
cylinder is the better of those available then I would be legging it down to
the shops! I really don't give a monkeys if it is something out of the
Flintstones or a 'doesn't it glow lovely with the lights out' rig as long as
it gets as close as possible. That can only be determined by comparison with
the original sound producing source. I have no interest in the 'Emperors new
coat' style of evaluation.

Going back to my synth experiment. Does anybody see a problem? Am I missing
something? A simple 'no' would suffice if you believe it to be sound.
On the other hand, if you consider it to be flawed then a please tell me
where I am going wrong.

Paul

amazing miracle device
 

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 17:26:04 +0100, "Paul" wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 16:32:38 +0100, "Paul" wrote:

snip

It is neither a bodge nor a fix. It is a way of using a resource that
would otherwise be wasted - high frequency headroom. An exactly
matched amplitude/phase curve is exactly equivalent to flat frequency
and phase, and there is no problem whatever in making that match.

Are you telling me that an RIAA filter is optional for vinyl?
My understanding is that it is a prerequisite and that it has to be employed
because it is impossible to cut a groove at high frequencies (perhaps even
low frequencies). The same being true for retrieval - a stylus simply could
not track it accurately even if it could be cut. Without it's use, the vinyl
experience would be appalling.
I believe that, because of the limitations, information is
compressed/omitted/converted or whatever and reconstituted in the amp. Am I
wrong here? I am more than happy to be told when I am wrong. If I am
correct, it is a bodge etc put in place to overcome limitations.


All pre-emphasis is optional - but things audio tend to work more
effectively with it, particularly vinyl, which needs all the help it
can get in terms of signal to noise ratio. FM radio uses pre-emphasis
simply because it is a good idea - it makes it a bit quieter. Many
years ago it was observed that the amplitude vs frequency distribution
of music and speech was heavily weighted to the bottom end. This meant
that there was a huge amount of modulation capacity going to waste at
the top end. It was an obvious thing to do to boost the top end
frequencies to fill that space, then cut them back again at the
receiver. It is trivially easy to match the two curves to a small
fraction of a dB.


And do remember that the CD specification includes the option to use
pre-emphasis.

But is it used? More to the point, as it is optional, it is clear that it
isn't necessary.

You will never know. Your CD player won't tell you. If you play mainly
modern pop you can be sure it isn't used, because that kind of music
tends to fill the frequency space without de-emphasis.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

amazing miracle device
 

I do wonder if you've heard either at its best. I have a Revox reel to
reel with a Dolby SR unit around it which gives results as near as dammit
to 16 bit PCM. FM radio can also be pretty good - although these days the
dreaded optimod type devices often ruin it.

Ok, I will take your word for it being very good. No I'm not taking the
mick - Revox have made some bloody good kit. In fact I would love one for
little jobs in my home studio - but not for Hi-Fi. I don't even use tape for
acoustic instruments - I go straight to harddisk. By your own admission it
only comes close to 16 bit PCM. It therefore falls short of what can be
obtained and misses the mark for me. If you have read my earlier posts you
may understand why this has no place in my agenda.

Paul

amazing miracle device
 

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 18:46:21 +0100, "Paul" wrote:


I do wonder if you've heard either at its best. I have a Revox reel to
reel with a Dolby SR unit around it which gives results as near as dammit
to 16 bit PCM. FM radio can also be pretty good - although these days the
dreaded optimod type devices often ruin it.

Ok, I will take your word for it being very good. No I'm not taking the
mick - Revox have made some bloody good kit. In fact I would love one for
little jobs in my home studio - but not for Hi-Fi. I don't even use tape for
acoustic instruments - I go straight to harddisk. By your own admission it
only comes close to 16 bit PCM. It therefore falls short of what can be
obtained and misses the mark for me. If you have read my earlier posts you
may understand why this has no place in my agenda.

Paul


Why are you only using 16 bit PCM? Surely your sound card can manage
24/96 - that is pretty much the standard these days.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

amazing miracle device
 

"Paul" wrote in message
...

I do wonder if you've heard either at its best. I have a Revox reel to
reel with a Dolby SR unit around it which gives results as near as dammit
to 16 bit PCM. FM radio can also be pretty good - although these days the
dreaded optimod type devices often ruin it.

Ok, I will take your word for it being very good. No I'm not taking the
mick - Revox have made some bloody good kit. In fact I would love one for
little jobs in my home studio - but not for Hi-Fi. I don't even use tape
for acoustic instruments - I go straight to harddisk. By your own
admission it only comes close to 16 bit PCM. It therefore falls short of
what can be obtained and misses the mark for me. If you have read my
earlier posts you may understand why this has no place in my agenda.



You need to loosen up, matey - get one of these:

http://www.thanko.jp/ibluetube/

and try and get a little *fun* out of the hobby....

amazing miracle device
 

Is *what* me?

Are you making the mistake of thinking I *don't* have about 500 CDs,
15,000 MP3s and 500 DVD-Videos here?

(Not to mention DAB and FV radio, two 'media computers' with DL DVDRW
drives, a selection of digital PVRs, STBs, CDPs, DVDPs and a couple of
Digital Projectors....???)

You'll be joining the ranks of those here (OK, one clown actually....)
calling me a 'Flat Earther' next.....!!


Keith, I have no idea what you have.
Trust me, I have no intention of calling you anything - I don't indulge in
such nonsense. In fact, should this discussion(?) degenerate to that level
(as many seem to do) I'm out of here! I won't be applying for membership to
anything and I would appreciate it if people will avoid nominating me!
I would imagine that you get great enjoyment from your listening
experience - that's what it's about isn't it.
I accept that many like to tinker and audio is a hobby to them. I have no
problem with that - it's none of my business anyway.
My 'problem' (obsession?) is that I want a system that will get me as close
as possible to the original sound.
In my quest it is clear to me that some get closer than others. It is
unfortunate that, in highlighting the less capable ones (and demonstrably
so), some people get upset. Is that my fault? I don't believe so but if it
is, I apologise.
At the end of the day, if a listener is happy with their system then that's
all that matters.
In the mean time, I'll plough on.

Paul

amazing miracle device
 

snip

Why are you only using 16 bit PCM? Surely your sound card can manage
24/96 - that is pretty much the standard these days.


I thought we were talking about a comparison with CD.
For my studio I use an M-Audio 2496 Pro audio card (no sound generating
capability). I'm very pleased with it.
No doubt I could do better but funds wont allow and I don't feel a need to
change. It does a fine job though and I would recommend it to anyone
involved with home recording etc.
PC sound cards are inadequate but then, to be fair, they are not designed
for it.

Paul

amazing miracle device
 

You need to loosen up, matey - get one of these:

http://www.thanko.jp/ibluetube/

and try and get a little *fun* out of the hobby....


Well, if nothing else Keith, you've given me a good laugh :) Thanks for
that.
What the hell is that? Second thoughts, don't tell me. There is an ipod
thingy in there somewhere - yuk.
Are they having a laugh?

I have absolutely no interest in Hi-Fi as a hobby.

Paul

PS Please don't tell me you have one else this thread will seriously spiral
out of control :)